Welcome & Intro – what the session will entail and intro Mark.
So just to talk a little about the origins of CrossCheck and when it started with CrossRef Straw poll on usage.
Well I think that really comes down to the database. We tend to think of CrossCheck as two things and one of those is the CrossCheck database. As you may know, when a publisher signs up they enable indexing of their content so that it can be added to this resource that both you and other publishers can check against. So more publishers = more content in that database. And of course the other part of the tool is the iThenticate software which users use to upload documents and generate the similarity reports. It’s no secret that in exchange for being able to index the content you get lower per-doc fees than you would if you used the off-the-shelf iThenticate product, and there are new fees as of 1 st Aug 2012 that should reduce fees for publishers as usage continues to increase. So, Usage:
The progress of CrossCheck to date and to talk about the database. Publishers including Wiley, ACS, PeerJ, F1000 Research. Not just STM! Very comprehensive database - can see list of titles on our website.
How has it grown since then? I think I’d point to two major areas of growth since CrossCheck was launched. The first being in the number of publisher members. Why is that important?
Plus publishers committing to submitting more documents to CrossCheck.
From our perspective that ’ s great, but we also wanted to do a survey to see how people are using CrossCheck 4 years after it has launched. We have anecdotal information of course, but we wanted to compare the results against what we did in 2009 when CrossCheck was just launched. If you didn ’ t receive the survey and are keen to fill it in, let me know and I ’ ll ensure it is sent to you. Main findings: Shift to checking on submission plus 4% not checking vs 25% A lot of these stats come from greater adoption but it ’ s interesting to see publishers commit to this. Useful part of Editorial Process Managing Ed/Ed Assistant doing it Across a wider spread of subject areas (mostly medicine but now more A&H, sociocultural etc) What people would like to see in iThenticate (follow-up on) What stuff people are aware of (webinars etc) Use of percentages vs volume of text checked Use being widely publicised – journal. Publisher level and in sub systems. Less so at article level – maybe through CM? Also running User Groups to get feedback.
I ’ d just like to remind you that if you are using CrossCheck you ’ re welcome to - in fact we would encourage you to let your authors and readers know that you are screening for originality. We have CrossCheck logos that you can download from our website to put on your journals and submission pages to provide some reassurance to honest authors and some warning to the less honest...
There are lots of ways to get involved in CrossCheck – we’ve started running CrossCheck specific User Groups: like this one! And they’re proving popular so far. US ones too around the CSE meeting in May. Regular webinars and more around new functionality, mailing list you can sign up to for updates and we’re currently running a survey on usage. If you didn’t get it, come and find me and let me know. We’re interested in your feedback.
So I’m going to leave it at that for now and let Laurie talk you through the iThenticate developments you can expect to see in the next 6 months or so. We’ve also got links to our Twitter page, an email address for more info and the Info pages.
CSE Annual Meeting 2013CrossCheck User GroupRachael LammeyProduct ManagerCrossRefrlammey@crossref.org
• 2006: CrossRef board raisesplagiarism as area of concern• Late 2007/early 2008: pilotwith seven publishers andtechnology partner iParadigms• June 2008: CrossChecklaunched
• Database of content to check textagainst• iThenticate software that analyses andcompares text (not plagiarismdetection!)• Updated CrossCheck fees forpublishers:http://www.crossref.org/crosscheck_fees.html
• 470 publishers• Over 34 million content items indexed• 86,000 titles• Over 50,000 documents being screened eachmonth• Total documents in checked 2012: 629,231(compared to 291,470 in 2011)
Member Publishers0204060801001201401601802002008 2009 2010 2011 2012
2012 CrossCheck Survey Results:• Evidence of a commitment by members to check articles using CrossCheckupon submission. 44% of respondents now run the iThenticate reports atthe submission stage of the peer review process compared to 25% in the2009 survey.• Publishers are running originality checks on more papers. 44% of thosesurveyed are checking all submitted manuscripts compared to 25% in 2009.• Publishers are using a range of criteria to flag manuscripts for furtherinvestigation, many of which are more subtle than relying on the overallsimilarity score in the iThenticate reports.• 73% of respondents had detected plagiarized content using CrossCheckcompared to 45% in 2009.• Responsibility for running the reports sits with a mixture of journaladministrative staff, managing editors and editors themselves – very fewauthors or reviewers are using iThenticate directly.
• CrossCheck User Groups and events• Presentations at conferences• Webinars• Mailing list• Resources• SurveysParticipation and Feedback